apuszczalowski

I would say theres no way on Gods green earth they trade for Miller, taking on $6.25 million in salary without an actual owner in place. The Coyotes can't do much taking on salary without someone not named "the NHL" running them. I have to say, when i was in Phoenix back in November, I saw zero support for their franchise anywhere. Their sports stores had tons of Cardinals and Sun Devils stuff, along with plenty of Diamondbacks gear, but only one store with a couple of Coyotes jerseys. I saw more Toronto Blue Jays gear worn by people in Arizona then Coyotes gear.................

Didn't he lose a bit of weight and is now the Sabres head coach?

because many of them ditch them when they get a chance cause large groups of fans, media (Cherry) and players will think of them as being wusses for wearing it

yeah, I get it, this is going to just continue to allow "the man" to tell us how and what we can and can't do with our lives. Otts Kiss was a penalty because it was 'Unsportmanlike/taunting" of another teamI would have no sympathy for these athletes end up suffering from serious physical and mental disabilities later in life (or even during their career) if they decide that they don't need or want to wear protective gear, and I have no problems with the NHL owner telling their players that they can pay their own medical bills and support themselves when they are out of the league if they don't feel the need to try and be safe at their work

I don't know weither that can be considered racist or a weird compliment for him?

The one missing the point is you. no ones saying that they should make some radical rule changes to the game like foam pucks, or eliminating blades on skates. we are talking about making it manditory to wear a visor, or some kind of protection to your face, and they are talking about grandfathering this rule in, so guys like Ott who feel they are too Manly to wear protective equipment won't be affected, only the kids coming up into the NHL will be, and they have been req'd to wear the same stuff growing up As for my point about being paid when injured, If the employer paying the salary (NHL/NHL Owners) ask you to wear protective equipment so you cut down on the risks of suffering a serious injury while at your job, and you say you don't want to and will risk the potential for injury, it should not be the owners responsibility to pay you if you suffer an injury that could have been prevented by wearing it. As for the overreaction about offseason activities and stuff, most athletes contracts already have this in them, that you risk not getting paid or having your contract voided if you are injured away from work and in the offseason. The average person doesn't have this in their work terms with their employer where if they are hurt while not at work they will still be paid their full contract. If your hurt outside of work, your using up personal sick days and then may have to get government disability to keep you getting an income until you can go back to work.

So why should the NHL make any safety equipment mandatory then? I'm sure Ott would be much more comfortable skating around not having to be hindered by wearing protective equipment I guess I should walk strainght into my bosses office and tell him that I am no longer wearing work boots on the job, they just aren't that comfortable. I'm going to also go tell the next cop that pulls me ver that I drive better without my seat belt on cause I feel more comfortable without it restricting me. Then when i get hurt in an accident My employer and the insurance company won't mind having to pay me while I'm off work......

No, thats not the point. If the players say that they don't want to wear safety equipment that the league wants to make manditory to reduce the chances of serious injury, then the owners should not be at fault if they suffer an injury that could have been prevented by that piece of safety gear. If the players vote down mandatory visors, they risk getting an eye/face injury and would also risk not getting paid by their employer. If a player is cut somewhere on their leg after refusing to wear teh protective sock that could have prevented it, then they should be at risk of not getting paid while injured. If the league makes it manditory and a player is injured while wearing that equipment, I'm not saying the owners are not required to pay, they would be.

If I am at work and not wearing safety gear that has been required for me to wear because I don't like it (for example I go onto a construction site not wearing steel toe boots that my employer has stated are required to be worn to protect my feet, and something falls on my foot breaking it), should my employer be responsible for paying me while Im off injured? Accidents happen, like your example of tripping over my untied shoelaces. And actually, no, I don't think that an employer should be required to pay out workers comp for me being too lzy to tie my own shoe laces. If I tripped and fell down the stairs because of something that my employer (or another employee) did that made the stairs unsafe, then yes they should be required to pay.

I couldn't tell if it was only one or both, but they were saying he should be getting a penalty because he dropped his gloves but the other guy didn't. I'm assuming that would be a stand alone instigator penalty?The Leafs announcers are always like that. I was funny to hear them just destroy Kaleta for diving, and then for not facing Orr and McClement for the faceoff (then Orr pretty much just grabs kaleta and gave him no choice to fight, yet Myers should be in the box cause he took his gloves off and stood there with the guy who hit Pominville.

Al safety equipment should be a personal choice, then the league can also make paying them when they get hurt because they aren't wearing the proper safety equipment the owners "personal choice" If wearing a visor can stop a player from getting a serious eye/face injury when they get hit with a puck, or wearing those sucks can help guys from getting seriously injured from a skate blade cutting them and they don't feel like wearing them for a stupid personal reason, then the owners shouldn't have to be obligated to pay them when they get hurt

Ott blows a kiss to the Leafs and fans love it, Peters shows a golf swing to the leafs and fans hate him for doing it and being immature........

If you watched on the leafs feed in Ontario, Doug Maclean druing the first intermission was going off on Kaleta for diving, and then not looking at Orr and McClement when they were setting up for the faceoff. He said he would never want Kaleta on one of his teams I was laughing later in the game when teh Leafs announcers wanted Myers to get a penalty late in the third for dropping his glove after Pominville was hit face first into the boards. No call or complaints about the hit on Pominville, but Myers should be given a penalty cause he took his gloves off...... Were you watching the Leafs feed of the game on Sportsnet too?

Didn't Ron Rolston coach the US Junior team to a good finish one year too?doesn't equal anything in the pros....

No, you do it based on what you want it to beLook at Pomminstein (somone many want gone or atleast give up the 'C'), everyone here talks about how weak and bad he is as a leader, yet guys like grigs talk about how great he was in the locker room teaching him and mentoring. Sure, tehres a difference with the contract, but you think its going to make a team want to give up something better for Miller because he is a rental for one season? And Luongo has only accepted splitting the duties cause he has no choice other then sitting out which will get him no where

Sure, why not? I would forgive Darcy for bringing in a guy with almost no proffesional coaching experience (only Jr level) and hasn't proven a thing as a head coach, just because he was a really good NHL goalie. Was Borrasso, Hasek, or Fuhr too busy? Atlleast they can follow in the former Sabres player getting a coaching gig here why not Gretzky?

man I'm so glad your not a GM, As I said many times before, its not like the league has never seen a goal play great for a stretch of time and then get figured out and never performs to that level again. There were times where noronen and Biron both looked like starters in the league. Ones a permanent backup and the others out of the NHL......talk to the Leafs fans about goalies playing good for stretches and becoming starters.......

I love how we all can assume things and just make stuff up. I have never heard anyone outside of fans that despise him so much say that he is an issue in the locker room..... And if he is just an average goaltender as you keep trying to say, what kind of value will he have to any team? Luongo is looked at as being a very good goaltender around the league and Vancouver can't find a taker that will bring back a decent return for them. There are teams willing to take him, but not for anything decent

Lets evaluate teh entire team on those game 7s and playoffs series. I seem to recall that one of the game 7s, against the Canes, the team was missing the majority of their defene and had lost their best shot blocker earlier in the day to a Staph inffection. In the Boston one, he appeared to be the only one to actually show up and play Now then, lets take a look at our new #1 starters playoff stats in teh NHL, anyone happen to have Enroths playoff stats? We are trying to win a cup here.....

Disagree with #2, theres a difference between not working with your GM and putting yourself in a position where your possibly ruining your chance to ever get an NHL job again. I don't think rolston would have any issues if he told any future teams that any reputation he had of not working with his GM was because they wanted to evaluate their talent for a new coach, and he was out there winning games...

The only thing saying its true is an article from the Hockey news that was repeated by Yahoo Sports. I haven't seen anything from the NHL or any other reputable sports/hockey source to confirm or deny it. They used the terms of the rule where it says if they are on the active roster for 40 games they use up one year, and then say that the league extrapolated the 40 number to 23.4 games for the shortened season, but don't actually show any details of the rule. For all anyone knows, the CBA may have also modified it so that this year in the shortened season, they have to play in those games and not just be on the roster. And why is this such a blunder for Regier, but acceptable for the Devils? Just because the Devils have a better history then teh Sabres they can be forgiven? Why is this even a blunder at all? All it means is that they have one less year to keep him with a smaller contract or as a RFA then they would have if he was sent down sooner. People here were pissed he was even sent down where he would have lost that year anyways. If he is the player that everyone here seems to think he is, I would hope they have him locked up to a long term deal way before he has a chance to ever reach UFA status and none of this will matter. i've been told that TP doesn't care about money when it comes to the team, so whats the issue with him having the ability to become a UFA one year earlier?

The closest comparrison I can think of was the Leafs in the Kessel deal with the bruins, where they traded their 1sts which ended up being the #2 pick)

And the fact that until his last game (not the Montreal one, the one before) he had lost his last 19 games is being ignored by the other groupits not like there have ever been goalies that have gone on a successful run and never worked out in the long run in the NHL. If a goalie goes on a hot streak, it always means they are for real and starter material...........

thats true, it could be, but the Front Office has said that he has a chance to earn the job and keep itAnd I can't see a guy, when given his first chance at coaching in the NHL level, be willing to not try and show what he can do and risk potential future job offers at the NHL level. If this team continues to lose and look bad, he may never get this chance again to coach at an NHL level

But if someone like Lou didn't know about this, then why would you then expect that anyone else should also know and its a mistake for them not to know?Who knows how many GMs also didn't know this? Its not like every GM was in the same situation with a junior player on their roster